For many members of the Notre Dame Class of 2009, the uproar surrounding the university's decision to honor Barack Obama with this year's commencement address, and to bestow on him a doctorate of laws, has provoked strong feelings about what the ensuing conflict will mean for their graduation.
I know how they feel. Ten years ago, my heart was filled with similar conflicts as we came closer to the day of my own Notre Dame commencement and my commissioning as an officer in the United States Army.
You see, I was three months pregnant.
That March, I had gone--alone--to a local woman's clinic to take a test. The results were positive, and I was so numb I almost didn't grasp what the nurse was getting at when she assured me I had "other options." What did "other options" mean? And what kind of world is it that defines compassion as telling a young woman who has just learned she is carrying life inside her that she has the option to destroy it?
When I returned to campus, I ran to the Grotto. I was confused and full of conflicting emotions. But I knew this: No amount of shame or embarrassment would ever lead me to get rid of my baby. Of all women, Our Lady could surely feel pity for an unplanned pregnancy. I recalled her surrendered love to God's invitation to become the home of the Incarnate Word. "Let it be done to me according to thy word," she had said. In my hour of need, on my knees, I asked Mary for courage and strength. And she did not disappoint.
My boyfriend was a different story. He was also a Notre Dame senior.
MORE
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
For all the disheartened Republican Catholics wanting to stick it to the Man, why not consider the ND students who see their university, their commencement, turned into a battleground?
It's certainly a shame that Fr. Jenkins didn't consider them. You're talking like this situation somehow overtook him instead of being created by him. He is the one who extended the invitation; the fact that he didn't consult with Bp. D'Arcy beforehand is very telling. If he really felt that there would be no problem, why not tell his bishop? As for putting my "spin" on words and actions that aren't mine, I wouldn't call it that: I would call it "trying to figure out what he's thinking by looking at his actions". I don't imagine for a moment that I know his real feelings on abortion or Obama's actions regarding it - I do know that by honouring Obama he is making gestures which downplay its grievousness.
Sonetka, so let's see ... you're blaming Fr Jenkins for all the bloggers who have let their fingers and tongues master their Christian impulses. Nice excuse: it's ND's fault for making us so angry!
I didn't let my child get away with that when she was eight.
As for the friction between bishops and university presidents, what fruit did you expect from ex corde? A fairly well-educated group of lay people and priests at the top of their profession and bishops decide to frame a document that shut them out of the consultation process. What about sitting people down and saying, "How can we assist one another in enhancing the Catholic witness of universities?" Telling in many of these pronouncements from above is exactly what reciprocal commitment is offered by Rome and by bishops.
Bishop D'Arcy and Fr Jenkins are both adults. I'm assuming if they're not on speaking terms, then there's some blame to share.
And for the record, I was being generous attributing your judgments to "spin." Your efforts are not in alignment with Catholic teaching in CCC 2478. Any of us can try to figure out what he's thinking, but unless you're on speaking terms yourself and he's given you authorization to share his thoughts, we're all better off when people keep their figuring to themselves. Think about it all you want. But publishing it publicly, as much of the conservative blogosphere has done, is an occasion of sin and scandal.
Todd:
Don't come here and talk about the level of commentary in the Catholic blogosphere. You are one of the worst offenders, without doubt. Your comments are unfailingly snide, cutting and dismissive of others.
Some commenters enter a discussion to illuminate or share a point of view. You don't. You comment only to cut down others and put your own self-regard on display. Really - I can't recall a comment of yours anywhere - here, Inside Catholic, or other places, which isn't a witchy little rant intended, not to share information, but to express your superiority.
You *never* address the issue, but *always* the purported motivations of those whom you are arguing against. ALWAYS.
Joe, if you're trying to say I'm not popular among many internet conservative Catholics, you are correct. My ideas are foreign to many of you. I word my arguments strongly, because I don't see them as weak statements. But I'm not going to bow out of the general practice of criticizing people just because people object to being among the criticized.
It is easy enough for people to lay into Jenkins, Kmiec, Brownback, and yes, even the pope and the last Vatican ambassador: they're not going to show up to defend themselves. You and I can write anything we want, and it's just going to sit there.
The difference with me is that you all are here, you read my comments, and your blood sometimes boils over it. Are you suggesting you want me to be nice to you? You all can defend yourselves, sometimes very ably. Are you suggesting that it's somehow less virtuous of me to criticize people who are quite able to address alleged shortcomings in their arguments? Is it better to write unkind and untrue things about people who aren't here to defend themselves? That doesn't make any sense to me.
If you think my writing is some kind of a superiority kick, let me take a page from Amy's and suggest: prove it. I'm sure that in all of those posts I've written to bewitch the commentariats at IC or any other conservative blog, you can find somewhere, surely, that I've posted I'm better than you or anyone else. I'll clue you in: I'm generally pretty careful about how I use words in the sense of not delivering a baseless critique. I don't have a problem apologizing for giving genuine offense, and if I've insulted you unfairly, Joe, I don't have a problem saying "I'm sorry" in a public forum like this.
As for this thread, my first post here disproves your assertion outright. I liked what Lacy had to say in First Things. Her witness to life is stirring, fearless, and admirable. I disagree with her conclusion about the ND and US presidents.
If you think you have something valid and substantial, Joe, you can bring it directly to my blog or e-mail me and I'll post your allegations and we can take the ping pong match a bit further over there.
yes, our children are watching and paying attention. my mom is one of five girls. they are split prolife and prochoice. the ones who are prolife all have grandchildren now. one of my mom's twelve grandchildren who belongs to my unwed sister has brought the most unexpected joy we have ever known. my aunts who are prochoice have no grandchildren. one was never able to have children after an abortion she regrets. the other has raised a prochoice daughter who has aborted her grandchildren. we have to decide what we want for our future, for our children and grandchildren. i pick prolife.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.